Stoller's right -- this kind of thing is not endearing me to Barack Obama.
« Double Standards | Main | How Cute »
Obama and Iran
02 Sep 2007 09:23 am
Comments (51)
Not endearing him to you, you mean.
I think we can agree that military action against Iran is crazy, but if even economic pressure is off the table, what are we supposed to do to prevent them from getting a nuke... hold our breath until we turn red?
If there's an argument against Obama's bill, neither you nor Stoller has made it. Why don't you work on that?
"I think we can agree that military action against Iran is crazy, but if even economic pressure is off the table..."
Matthew's phoning it in over the holidays. Stoller is always phoning it in.
There are many reasons to think Obama would be a lousy nominee, but this certainly isn't one of them.
Good to know that Matthew, Stoller, and Dick Cheney are the three people in America who think it's vital to have free trade with Iran.
I don't see this as having anything to do with a "drumbeat to war". You may disagree with the divestment but there was no warmongering quote.
So let me get this straight: the party line right now isn't just "Don't go to war with Iran" (agreed), but "Iran: Pretty Nice Guys Who We Are Morally Obligated To Invest Our Money In?"
That is not an argument that's likely to win.
Gawd, I hate agreeing with Petey.
Another crazy post by Stoller endorsed by Matt.
I do not get it.
I don't see what's so hard about this.
What we most need right now with Iran is a reduction of tensions: we need to not do more things that heat up the conflicts now underway, or even that sustain them at their current level. Pushing on Iran is inevitably going to play into the hands of those who want war. Whatever the merits of fresh pressure on Iran on any front might be at a time when we aren't governed by warmongering fools and nut cases, this just isn't the moment.
We've been here before, if folks think back to 2002-3. Every expression of interest in pushing on Iraq, on any front, ended up being used as justification for the war effort. It didn't matter much what the advocates of such pressure thought they were doing - it all became grist for the war party.
So it it's really not rocket science to think that people who would prefer there not be a war with Iran ask themselves something like this: Are the rewards on this so important that they warrant giving encouragement and cover to Bush/Cheney's efforts to start a new Middle East war?
Here, let me explain it to you guys who say that you "don't get it". The U.S. has threatened Iran verbally since Bush's heyday in the aftermath of 9/11, and is currently ramping up a domestic propaganda effort to cast Iran as an aggressor against the U.S. in Iraq. Various elements with power and influence in Israel and the U.S. (AIPAC) have been pushing the U.S. to confront Iran militarily since at least the aftermath of 9/11. Iran has reacted predictably: through bluff or actual concrete steps, as it is backed into a corner, it has sought to pose a counterthreat. Rather than finding a way to unwind this grave situation, Obama lands himself on the side of escalation. According the Jewish Week article, he is doing so in exchange for votes and cash.
Escalation vs. de-escalation: get it?
>>hold our breath until we turn red
Are we talking about Iran or the Bush approach to North Korea? Because that plan worked brilliantly with the DPRK. We sat in the corner and turned red and then, and only then, did we start diplomacy. Worked like a charm. You never talk to bad guys or evildoers until you exhaust the possibilities of doing nothing and sitting in the corner holding your breath first. Petulance trumps intelligence every time.
Or something.
>>Not endearing him to you, you mean.
I've only just recently started reading your blog on a regular basis, Matt. Not to pile on, but you bring out the grammar cop in all of us. You need a proofreader. A lot of your posts contain mistakes like this. Don't make it so obvious that you are trying to churn out as many posts per day as possible.
Rather than finding a way to unwind this grave situation, Obama lands himself on the side of escalation.
If the only two possible positions are "Bomb Iran" or "Don't do anything that would upset Iran," we're going to bomb Iran. That's exactly the way the Administration set up the debate about Iraq: either you're for invasion or you're for appeasement; there are no middle positions or policies. Anyone remember how that worked out?
So Obama is either with us or against us, huh? There are no "alternatives", only war or peace, huh?
Obama is attempting to provide us with an ALTERNATIVE to war with IRAN (as many commenters and the administration (who opposes this) have noticed and you criticize him for it without a second thought? Well, lets sit on our hands and see what happens? Maybe it will all just go away.
You know, Benjamin Netanyahu was on Fox a few months ago touting this divestiture idea* (he had been on a tour of U.S. pension funds pitching them on the idea). Does that make Obama a Likudnik?
*Just to be clear, it's already against U.S. law to invest directly in Iran. What Netanyahu and Obama have in mind is divesting from foreign multinationals that do business in Iran, in order to pressure those multinationals to leave Iran.
This divestment campaign is linked to a pro-war position simply because when these economic sanctions fail to change Iranian policy into giving up their nuclear energy program, which is unacceptable to their population, every pro-war supporter turn around and say "See, I told you so! Now when do we bomb?"
Trying to cripple another country's economy is an act of aggression. It might be justifiable, but it's aggression nonetheless.
Obama: "I'll talk to N Korea, I'll talk with Amahdinejad - no preconditions. We need dialogue to avoid needless escalation."
Jews of the AIPAC Lobby snap their fingers....
Obama: "Did I mention we need to escalate this after I got more clarity from some Big Donors? What I meant was I want to talk to Prez Amahdinejad about how I wish to use multinationals to strangle the Iranian economy and drive the price of oil up for NYC, London, & Tel Aviv speculators unless China comes in and takes over service sector jobs from the Western energy interests?"
Matt is right to be disappointed. The Iraq and Iran issues are inextricably linked. A key to a successful US disengagement from Iraq, one that conduces to political stabilization of the country rather that a continued Iraqi and regional meltdown that will likely only provoke another US intervention later, is a coordinated regional plan of action for Iraq into which all of Iraq's neighbors have bought in. To the extent that Iraq remains an insecure and violent battleground where competing foreign powers are required to defend their security interests through proxies and tangled alliances with sub-national militias, the violence in Iraq will continue and probably spread.
Promoting and establishing such a regional plan will require pro-active diplomacy by the US and other major players, and constructive engagement with all of Iraq's neighbors. Any legitimate US security concerns vis-a-vis the Iranians can be addressed in the context of that diplomatic initiative, which will serve as a confidence-building multilateral foundation for further bilateral talks between Tehran and Washington.
I don't think this is just my view, but in the very recent past it was the view of much of the vaunted Foreign Policy Establishment, as reresented by the VSPs on the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission. It seemed for a time that Obama was on board with this thinking, as evidence by his very promising willingness to take on the anti-Iran hardliners with his debate talk about meeting with Iranians in the first year of his administration. But Obama has run hard away from that position ever since he first articulated it, and was seemingly too spooked by some of the domestic backlash to stick with it.
Leading Democrats have an incoherent Middle East policy, based on withdrawing all or most of our troops from Iraq, while at the same time promoting a hard line against Iran and a regional cold war-style power struggle. This is an absurdly self-undermining approach, and shows much more evidence of something-for-everyone electoral pandering to competing US factions than marks of any coherent strategic thinking. If one's intent is to throw one's weight behind one side in an increasingly tense regional power conflict, then it makes no sense to remove our presence from what is currently the main battlefield in that regional conflict. Contrapositively, if one wants to disengage the US from that battlefield, then one ought to promote stabilization and pacification in the region, not continued hardline brinkmanship.
It should also be noted that, given the current political context here in the US, continuing with this confrontational posture toward Iran will give Democrats no strong and principled platform from which to challenge a military assault on that country. If one accepts the basic Bush narrative about Iranian implacability, then the difference between harsh, punitive sanctions and military action is only a tactical difference that will melt away quickly once the bombs begin falling. And clearly once hostilities with Iran begin, one can forget about leaving Iraq any time soon. The Democrats are basically setting themselves up politically for a repeat of their Iraq War experience by accepting a hawkish framework for thinking about Iran that will only allow subsequently for demurral from a policy of more forceful confrontation, and not vigorous opposition to that policy.
Maybe everyone can vote for Nader again. Jeebus.
Okay, let me see if I get this right. Here's the progressive positions:
Divestiture in South Africa in the circa 1980s:
A great idea to pressure a government to change its ways.
Divestiture in Iran circa 2007:
A terrible idea to pressure a government to change its ways.
So, I guess proven methods to apply pressure should be tossed out the window because they might help support Bush's March to War? Because, you know, we don't really care about changing what Iran does these days.
Master Jack got it right on the very first post on Stoller's blog:
"it appears to me that Obama's trying to take a hard line on Iran in a way that doesn't involve having a war. Which is why the White House is smothering his initiative -- they want nothing BUT a war.
If Obama's initiative would INCREASE the possibility of a war, then the White House would be celebrating it and pimping it all over the place, not trying to stifle it."
Um, yeah. Divestment is way far from war. All the posts that argue otherwise are hopelessly labored.
The people here who believe that this is about providing an alternative to war are useful idiots. The only viable position for those who do not want war is to reject the legitimacy of aggressive war in principle.
To accept the view that Iran must be stopped from developing nuclear power (and thus to acquire the capability to build a bomb), but only through sanctions, is not a politically viable stance. Sanctions won't stop Iran if they really want to develop nuclear power. Even North Korea managed to develop nuclear power. Hence, sanctions will not give you the assurance that Iran will not acquire the capacity to build a bomb.
You either have to accept that Iran's attempt to build a nuclear reactor is in itself neither a casus belli nor a reason to impose sanctions or you have to take the view that the goal of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear power (and thus the capability to build a bomb) suffices to justify aggressive war. The second option is compatible with trying out sanctions first. However, it has an inbuilt automatism to lead to war, given that sanctions won't suffice to ensure that Iran won't develop a nuclear capability.
gr,
First let's avoid name-calling ("useful idiots"); this is an extremely serious subject and deserving of serious discussion. Second, this is not about Iran's "nuclear reactor"; it's about nuclear weapons in the hands of a very problematic regime and that can lead to the deaths of millions of people - and not just Israelis, as some of those indifferent to Iran's acquisition of such weapons suppose. Third, it is far from certain that sanctions don't work; they have a mixed record, but they have been successfully applied (cf. South Africa and Libya and perhaps even North Korea), and Iran is economically less able than most to withstand them. It's not necessarily an all-or-nothing proposition as you suggest.
I’m not sure where the criticism is coming from here. Using non-military measures to stop the Iranian nuclear program is (putatively) pretty non-controversial, and most definitely is not warmongering. It seems that if we assume that preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is a good thing, and that military action against Iran is bad thing, then Obama’s program seems pretty reasonable, especially when combined with advocating negotiations over Iraq and other issues.
Some Non-Critical Questions for Matt and others
(1) Do you believe that Iran is working to build nuclear weapons?
(2) If so, should US policy aim to prevent this, and
(3) If so, what measures short of war should the US use to achieve this end.
I acknowledge that (1) and especially (2) are debateable questions, but assuming (1) and (2) it seems that divestment and sanctions aren’t a bad idea. Though we should still be taking military action off the table and seeking negotiations.
GR, it is possible that Iran will develop nuclear bombs sooner or later with or without war.
At one time it was assumed that plutonium bombs were all we had to worry about, and that made air strikes an effective option to stop a nuclear program, because plutonium is bred in a nuclear reactor which is huge and hard to hide.
Then the Pakistanis went ahead and developed a bomb using Uranium 235, extracted from natural uranium using centrifuges. Thousands and thousands of centrifuges are needed, and each one is not large. They can effectively hidden underground, and sprinkled among many sites.
This changes the military calculation. No longer can bombing be relied on to end a nuclear program. Indeed, bombing can be plausibly seen as likely to ACCELERATE bomb development, because it increases the need for a deterrent.
In the case of Iran, short of taking and holding the country indefinitely (anyone want the draft?), there are no military options that will prevent bomb development. The best one could hope for is slowing a program, and that would not be a sure thing.
In view of these realities, sanctions do not lead to war for any sane US government, and Obama seems sane. They are a tool that can be used to put the cost of bomb development as high as possible, hoping to derail or slow such a program. In the end they may do no more than show other countries that the costs of bomb development are high. They do not lead to war because there is no acceptable sustainable military option.
A President who ignores hard realities and is quick to war is the worry here, not Obama. It is Bush or Giuliani we have to worry about.
There are limits on US power. Actually stopping a determined Iran from building a bomb is actually outside the limits of our power.
This definitely isn't in the vein of his "let's invade Pakistan" gaff. MY is usually smart on these issues, but he seems a bit shellshocked over endorsing shows of American strength (even non-military), especially with regard to Russia, probably because he backed the war. There is no reason why a policy of engagement cannot be reconciled with a policy of a willingness to use economic pressure. Sticks and carrots and all.
From those of you who think this global divestment campaign is a good idea, I would like some answers to a few question. What exactly do you expect a sanctions and divestment campaign to accomplish? What exactly is the nature of the Iranian problem or problems you see such a campaign addressing? What are the criteria for the success of such a campaign? What specific Iranian action or actions should bring an end to the campaign? Under what conditions should the US re-establish diplomatic relations with Iran?
Generally speaking, I would think a progressive approach to international relations and security would hold that one moves to economic or military aggression against another country only after it has become clear that diplomatic path will not work. But since the United States has not yet even begun to explore the direct diplomatic path with Iran, working only in an indirect and non-committal way through European proxies who represent their own countries, and are not really empowered to negotiate any agreements with Iran on behalf of the US, I don't see how any fair-minded person can say this path has already been explored, or that one can predict in advance that it will be unavailing. This is an especially vital point given that the US has rebuffed several Iranian overtures in the past, and seems determined to do whatever it takes to avoid the diplomatic path. Why does Obama want to continue with this intransigence?
It seems to me that the current Obama approach accepts entirely the administration's portrayal of the nature and intentions of the Iranian regime, and also accepts the administration's take on US interests in the Middle East and US regional strategy. Again we seem to be on the same garden path that lead to our current situation in Iraq, with one side arguing for war now, and the other arguing for a sanctions-driven hard line, with a "war later" deferment. How well did that approach work?
Splitting the difference between two horns of a false dilemma, where both horns are built upon a set of mistaken presuppositions about the nature of the problem, is not wise statesmanship. Nor is it a example of healthy moderation or sanity. It's just politics. A Glenn Beck view of the world without the Glenn Beck prescriptions for action doesn't make one a sober realist. It just makes one a sort of wimpy Glenn Beck.
We really need some of our leaders to break out of the reigning Middle East paradigm, which offers only a difference between slow-moving or fast-moving ride toward the same bitter destination. The word "divestment" might call up some good progressive feelings, and nostalgic reminiscences about progressive triumphs of the past. That doesn't make divestment a smart approach.
They can effectively hidden underground, and sprinkled among many sites.
Technically the centrifuges have to be hooked up in cascades, so it's not like you can just have ten here and ten there. Plus the power requirements are rather high and not just in terms of KWs, any power surges or outages would mess things up. An enrichment system would be easier to hide than a big fat nuke reactor, but it's not super stealthy either.
That said, I don't see any indication that the Iranian government is irrational, so there's no reason why MAD wouldn't work to keep a nuclear Iran somewhat contained.
"It seems to me that the current Obama approach accepts entirely the administration's portrayal of the nature and intentions of the Iranian regime, and also accepts the administration's take on US interests in the Middle East and US regional strategy. Again we seem to be on the same garden path that lead to our current situation in Iraq, with one side arguing for war now, and the other arguing for a sanctions-driven hard line, with a "war later" deferment. How well did that approach work?"
I'm not completely sure about this. Just a few weeks ago Clinton was hitting Obama for agreeing to meet with leaders of countries like Iran, Cuba and North Korea, thus preferring engagement over aggression too much. Now he prefers aggression too much over engagement? Political junkies can get too caught up in over-analyzing the day-to-day utterances of campaigns to look for substantive differences between what policies different people would potentially follow over a year from now. Andrew Sullivan does this a lot as he switches his positions on the major Democrats with each new press release. There is a national security issue with regard to the Iranian nuclear program and Democrats will likely need to find a way to resolve this peacefully with both sticks and carrots if we are to ensure that the neocons don't get their way of bombing Iran back to the Stone Age.
There is no legal, strategic or moral calculus by which we have any right to pressure Iran over its inalienable right, guaranteed by binding treaty, to master the nuclear fuel cycle. I will vote for a third party candidate before voting for a Democrat who refuses to acknowledge this obvious truth.
It's one thing to say that on balance there may be no practical way to prevent Iran from getting the Bomb; but I remain utterly stupefied by the lackadaisical attitude of a huge number of people on the Left toward the idea of more and more dictatorships getting it -- something I've just run into again in the comments on Greg Djerejian's site. The party line seems to be: (A) They have a "right" to it; and (B) so what, anyway?
For the record, my children:
(1) MAD won't always work -- especially if a nation has a rickety warning, command and control system.
(2) Even if MAD does work, dictatorships are tremendously more dangerous as Bomb-owners than democracies, for two reasons that should be goddamned obvious. First, they live in fear not only of outside enemies but of an internal revolt by their own people, which means that they'll be tempted to take gambles at using the Bomb to try to extort money from the outside world that would be totally insane for a democracy but are quite sensible for them. (See Korea [North].)
(3) Second, if such a regime does collapse chaotically, its nukes can fall into God knows whose (untraceable) hands.
(4) Now throw in, with Moslem countries, a culture with a strong whiff of suicidal death-worship.
(5) Now consider the nationwide -- and, indeed, worldwide -- reaction when the first city goes up in a nuclear ball of fire, leaving the inhabitants of the world's other cities uncertain as to who will be next.
The resultant threat of nuclear terrorism and/or accidental nuclear war utterly dwarfs any other threat to human civilization right now; all non-nuclear terrorism is a flyspeck by comparison. (In a few decades, the continuing wonders of genetic engineering will enable us to start routinely manufacturing doomsday plagues -- deliberate or accidental -- with comparably apocalyptic destructive capabilities; but that hasn't happened yet, and in any case when it does happen I question whether anything whatsoever can be done to stop it. Sufficient unto the day is the Apocalypse thereof.)
I don't really see a problem with Obama's position(although perhaps my man-love for him is getting in the way). The Iranians will almost certainly try to develop a weapon at some point in the future because they would be stupid not to. Possessing a nuke is the only sure way to prevent US or Israeli attack. Nuclear proliferation is a bad thing, and even more so in a region as volatile as the middle east.
Divestment will increase the cost of Iran's nuclear program, and combined with actual negotiations may show some results. Carrots, sticks, and all that.
Bruce, building a bomb is really, really fucking hard and takes a lot of electricity. Iran is not building a bomb, and if they were, we'd know it. Their program is clearly designed to give them the option of building a bomb in the future, but they don't have the resources or capacity to build one right now, and even the CIA thinks they're, at worst, a decade away from building one.
What's under discussion is sanctioning them for activities that are in fact legal and above board, activities they're permitted to undertake by binding treaties to which we're signatories. It's utterly insane.
Anyone who's truly scared by Iranian scientists working on the fuel cycle is either an idiot or a pussy.
Bruce Moomaw,
I don't think anyone in this comment thread (Some Dude possibly excepted) is sanguine about Iran obtaining nuclear bombs.
IT WOULD BE A BIG BAD THING. MORE BOMBS = BIG TROUBLE. ESPECIALLY IN THE MIDDLE EAST.
So going on and on about how a nuclear-armed Iran would be bad is off point. We know, we know. BAD.
I get tired of straw man arguments.
Even Some Dude is referring to the nuclear fuel cycle, which when coupled with international controls does not lead to bomb-making. (This is due to technical differences between a nuclear electrical plant and a plutonium breeding reactor - they are different beasts).
Even though Iran getting a bomb would be bad, that doesn't magically create feasible long-term military options for stopping proliferation. There are none, unfortunately.
Our only option is to muddle through with diplomacy and sanctions and other political methods that have no guarantee of success.
Is Obama's position wise? Debatable. What is not debatable is that favoring sanctions does not lead us ineluctably closer to war, or play into the hands of the war-mongers.
Even though Iran getting a bomb would be bad, that doesn't magically create feasible long-term military options for stopping proliferation. There are none, unfortunately.
I'm not sure about that. We could, for instance, convene allies and interested parties and work with Iran to, say, build nuclear reactors that wouldn't further any ambitions towards weaponry. We could tie this to a policy that withdrawal from the NPT would be considered an act of war that could be met with anything from a blockade to a massive invasion force, depending on circumstances.
This would be rather "muscular," would respect Iran's rights, and would meet our aims.
Bullying allies into sanctioning Iran for legal activities or "divesting" from them are silly policies.
Incidentally, this does play into warmonger's hands. One of the underreported stories right now is the way Bush is using the Treasury to menace other countries who do business in ways we don't like by threatening to cut them out of our economy. If Obama's "economic pressure" were brought to bear, Treasury agents would be informing French, Russian, and Chinese companies that doing business with Iran might expose them to being cut off from our banking system. They would not take this lightly.
Some Dude, Some facts.
Iran is a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty (NPT), which does indeed allow mastery of the fuel cycle FOR PEACEFUL PURPOSES. The treaty includes safeguard obligations monitored by IAEA. Iran failed to declare its nuclear enrichment program, which I think is ample grounds for suspicion of bad faith on their part.
On a technical level enrichment is so critical because while enriching to 5% is needed for a power program, enriching above that level (>90% is needed for bombs) using fundamentally similar processes on a larger scale, and cannot be defended as part of "the fuel cycle" unless the fuel is intended to burn cities.
IAEA involvement in the enrichment is critical to determining Irani intentions, and their track record is not great. If all they want is to master the fuel cycle why didn't they comply with the IAEA safeguards agreement?
You really are slanting the evidence, and I am neither an idiot or a pussy, but I do worry about Iranians using the NPT fuel cycle alllowance as a cover for work actually dedicated to enriching uranium 235 to weapons grade levels.
If you read my other posts you will see this does not lead me to favor military action. Iam no war monger. Yet you seem to be arguing that Iran has behaved perfectly within bounds, and I think that makes you a stooge or a dupe.
IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaredei has a pretty good history of making the right calls (he was very accurate on Iraq).
"In November 2003 IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reported that Iran had repeatedly and over an extended period failed to meet with its safeguards obligations, including by failing to declare its uranium enrichment program.[25] After nearly two years of diplomatic efforts led by France, Germany and the UK, in September 2005, the IAEA Board of Governors, acting under Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute, found that these failures constituted non-compliance with the IAEA safeguards agreement, not the NPT itself.[26] The United States contends on this basis that Iran violated Article II as well as Article III of the NPT.[27]"
A stance that Iran has acted in good faith and within their agreements is very weak indeed.
I am neither an idiot or a pussy
I don't take you for one! I'm more referring to people like, seemingly, our entire political class, who think that Iran is days away from wielding the awesome power of the atom to enslave Saudi Arabia, kill everyone in Israel, etc.
I take issue with your points two ways. First, Iran has indeed acted in bad faith—and then responded to the revelation of it by allowing more stringent inspections and so forth. This led to the most recent report, which raises some vaguely troubling points but also, unsurprisingly, reveals that Iran has nothing like the operational centrifuge capacity required to enrich anything. It's possibly, I suppose, that they have additional hidden infrastructure, but in that case we really ought to wonder what the fuck we're spending all that satellite money on if it can't uncover the physically massive and energy-intensive structures needed to enrich.
Second, Iranian bad faith in dealings with the IAEA (something that's a long way from conquering Spain with its mighty arsenal) should be met not with war or with divestment schemes, but with demands that Iran cooperate with the IAEA... which they seem to be doing.
I find the whole debate warped.
The interesting thing about Iran and nuclear power that I never hear people discuss is that Iran actually has pretty good scientific reasons for having a nuclear program. Iranian physicists publish regularly in top tier American journals, and the International Physics Olympiad was held just this past summer in Isfahan, where teams of students (including the US) competed without incident in world class facilities (I think there was a Washington Post feature on this a little while back). This is why it's such a sticking point when it comes to negotiations and people insisting Iran not even be allowed the right to enrich uranium in their own country, it's a matter of Persian pride and scientific achievement.
Also, "Irani"? Come on now...
Some Dude,
"We could, for instance, convene allies and interested parties and work with Iran to, say, build nuclear reactors that wouldn't further any ambitions towards weaponry."
This is what the NPT is all about. All of thisis in place.
"We could tie this to a policy that withdrawal from the NPT would be considered an act of war that could be met with anything from a blockade to a massive invasion force, depending on circumstances."
Really? A massive invasion force? Is there ANYTHING in the stances our allies have taken that they would be a part of this? We could unilaterally take over Iran and then what? We hold them indefinitely? We leave and their renewed hatred supercharges re-developing their program?
This is what I mean by the limits of power. There are INSANE things we could do that might work in the short run, but as long-term strategy they suck.
BTW, are you aware how much you sound like the folks who led us into the Iraq War? Citing non-existent allies, over-optimistic estimates of a democracy's ability to maintain a bloody occupation over time?
Blockading? Although technically an act of war, it isn't very bloody or expensive and so is sustainable. But what are we blockading? Iran primarily exports oil. If we stop Irani trade world oil prices will go up. Somehow that seem unlikely to advance our cause. Can you doubt we will lose what allies we had managed to find?
As with N. Korea and Iraq six years ago, there are no good options, only less bad options. Sanctions are one of the few tools we have in our kit and Obama is not leading to war by mentioning war.
Some Dude,
I agree the whole debate is warped. It is true that Iran cleaned up their act after getting caught not disclosing their enrichment.
It is possible that now with careful diplomacy they can be persuaded to go the full NPT route, with disclosures, inspections, etc.
That would be the best possible way out of this mess, and we should avoid being needlessly confrontational as we explore this possibility.
Looked at in this light Obama's push for sanctions now could be too much too early. Perhaps we are actually close to agreement in policy terms.
The conundrum - all the other big candicates are even more obstreporous. Unmodulated Iran bashing is popular for Republicans, and Democrats join in to show centrists they aslo have stones.
This is what the NPT is all about. All of thisis in place.
Indeed. We ought to act like it.
I should clarify—a massive invasion would obviously be a horrible idea. But keeping the option "on the table," as it were, as part of a broader policy that aimed at securing our interest here—which is keeping Iran in the NPT where they have nosy experts poking around, not preventing them from exercising their rights to peaceful nuclear programs—makes some sense, especially given the political realities someone in Obama's position has to face.
Everyone should read the recent IAEA report. (http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/IranIAEAreportAugust30.pdf) It draws a picture of a program that raises concerns that Iran wants to develop the capacity to build bombs, but that is facing huge technical problems. Significantly, IAEA confirms non-diversion of declared nuclear material, which means that the Chicken Little set (ie James Woolsey, who's running around Washington claiming that Iran is months away from a bomb!) really ought to start providing some evidence of undeclared materials or pipe down.
Don Kervick - Generally speaking, I would think a progressive approach to international relations and security would hold that one moves to economic or military aggression against another country only after it has become clear that diplomatic path will not work. But since the United States has not yet even begun to explore the direct diplomatic path with Iran, working only in an indirect and non-committal way through European proxies who represent their own countries, and are not really empowered to negotiate any agreements with Iran on behalf of the US, I don't see how any fair-minded person can say this path has already been explored, or that one can predict in advance that it will be unavailing.
Don has come up with intelligent posts, but he falls into the liberal trap of believing that "If only Bush wanted to talk, things would be resolved...". That somehow the moral force of transnational committees and Diplomacy will solve all global crises...except on those unsophisticated Philistine Americans.
Which ignores that past Presidents like Carter, Bush II, and Clinton desperately wanted to talk to Iran and fix things...but the Iranians weren't interested. Nor with others like KSA and the EU. The failure of the Euros, who the Iranians were told were consonate with our policies and desires, failed..much to the incredulity of the Germans and French who assured others that Iran would listen to them. Russia has had miserable luck with them as well.
It is wishful thinking to believe that after spurning America's overtures for 30 years, and others, that somehow Iran is magically ready to deal now, but only with Bush, in the cause of Middle East peace and ready to abandon its support for terror and it's nuke weapons program.
randomkid - Through ex-officers, I've met a few great Iranian exiles working in the US nuclear power industry. They are very good people, IMO. But Iran's supposed "peaceful energy program" is suspect, in their free opinion, as well. (They were trained in the 70s in the USA and UK and France when the SHah had building some 70 reactors in mind because the consensus was that oil and gas would be too expensive to burn for simple electric generation in 25 years, and Iran was running out)
The Iranian exiles questioned why Iran was only investing in enrichment. When they could buy enriched fuel easily and cheaply...why is all the money and effort going there, a nuke weapons acquisition requirement in a nuclear problem, but not in any investment into a fuel fabrication facility, any investment to create the infrastructure - cooling water supply, electric grid, transportation - to the 20 Sites the US/Russia established would be optimal for Iranian nuke electric plants to be? Why no money in any sitework, or money for the two uncompleted reactors. Why are Iranian nuclear engineers still leaving Iran? They say it's part repression, part because the jobs for the peaceful use elements of a nuclear cycle are almost non-existent, and what jobs are there require political and religious reliability?
Their conclusion?
Iran's leaders are working on the Bomb, they have no similar peaceful use of nuke power track happening in parallel. That is window dressing.
The guys I met were all in their 40s or 50s, Muslims thatlove America, hate the Mullahs, Arabs, Zionists in equal measure.
They also seem to delight in poking fun at America's foibles, and it is interesting to see what they do see as our foibles. Last time I saw them was at a Pacific Gas and Electric picnic right after Katrina where they were saying that Persians are far more civilized than the "bottomfeeders" of NOLA - "When we have an earthquake in Iran, there is no stealing, there is no whining "Oh, when will the Mullahs come with ice and fresh diapers!". Talking about Persian cross-dressers and what they said were 1,000 year old jokes about Arabs still in use.
randomkid - Through ex-officers, I've met a few great Iranian exiles working in the US nuclear power industry. They are very good people, IMO. But Iran's supposed "peaceful energy program" is suspect, in their free opinion, as well. (They were trained in the 70s in the USA and UK and France when the Shah had building some 70 reactors in mind because the consensus was that oil and gas would be too expensive to burn for simple electric generation in 25 years, and Iran was running out)
The Iranian exiles questioned why Iran was only investing in enrichment. When they could buy enriched fuel easily and cheaply...why is all the money and effort going there, a nuke weapons acquisition requirement in a nuclear problem, but not in any investment into a fuel fabrication facility, nor any investment to create the infrastructure - cooling water supply, electric grid, transportation - to the 20 Sites the US/Russia established would be optimal for Iranian nuke electric plants to be? Why no money in any sitework, or money for the two uncompleted reactors.
Why are Iranian nuclear engineers still leaving Iran? They say it's part repression, part because the jobs for the peaceful use elements of a nuclear cycle are almost non-existent, and what jobs are there require political and religious reliability?
Their conclusion?
Iran's leaders are working on the Bomb, they have no similar peaceful use of nuke power track happening in parallel. That is pure window dressing for the masses, Arab neighbors, and guillable Leftists to swallow or reject.
The guys I met were all in their 40s or 50s, Muslims that love America, hate the Mullahs, Arabs, Zionists in equal measure.
They also seem to delight in poking fun at America's foibles, and it is interesting to see what they DO see as our foibles. Last time I saw them was at a Pacific Gas and Electric picnic right after Katrina where they were saying that Persians are far more civilized than the "bottomfeeders" of NOLA - "When we have an earthquake in Iran, there is no stealing, there is no whining "Oh, when will the Mullahs come with ice and fresh diapers!". Talking about Persian cross-dressers compared to "Pervert City" (San Fran) and what they said were 1,000 year old jokes about Arabs still in use today heavy on goat sex, inability of any 3 or more Arabs to agree on anything. "What is a meeting of 3 or more Arabs? - A war they forgot to bring their swords to." "Why do Arabs prize Circassian and Persian women? - Have you seen Arab women?" "A definition of a goat. - An essential possession for any Arab man too poor to have a Circassian or Persiam wife." "Why are Arab women veiled? - So Arab men don't weep."
Chris Ford, the problem is in the current context it is the US that refuses to meet with Tehran. Iran has offered and we refused. Instead, we waste our time calling Iran totalitarian (as if the country with the fourth-most blogs is as oppressive as North Korea) and their draftee-filled military a terrorist group. Even Christopher Hitchens, who has become a bit of a neocon, thinks Bush should pull a Nixon-goes-to-China. We aren't in a Munich moment and those people who think we are are just projecting their wishes to be great men of history onto events that exist outside of their delusional fantasies.
In unrelated news, Jimmy Hoffa is apparently a Zionist Neocon Warmonger who has Sold Out to Big Business and the Republicans.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/08/22/teamsters-call-iran-a-bad-bet/
/snark/
"Obama: "I'll talk to N Korea, I'll talk with Amahdinejad - no preconditions. We need dialogue to avoid needless escalation."
Jews of the AIPAC Lobby snap their fingers....
Obama: "Did I mention we need to escalate this after I got more clarity from some Big Donors? What I meant was I want to talk to Prez Amahdinejad about how I wish to use multinationals to strangle the Iranian economy and drive the price of oil up for NYC, London, & Tel Aviv speculators unless China comes in and takes over service sector jobs from the Western energy interests?""
How did Chris Ford get this right? Is someone else posting using his name? He NEVER gets things right!
Here's the real problem with divestiture:
1) It won't work. Iran is not going to stop with their nuclear energy program because they CAN'T. Get it through your heads - they NEED that energy. And even if they didn't, do you morons think the Iranians are going to stop because the US - or even the US and Europe - are demanding it? You really think those sanctions are going to make a difference? That makes Obama stupid at best.
2) It shouldn't have to - because there IS NO Iranian "nuclear weapons program". Therefore there is no need for divestiture - unless you just want to be nasty to the regime for being nasty to its dissidents.
Fine, whatever. But as long as Bush and Cheney and Israel are ginning up the case for war, it would behoove those who are against a war from supporting unnecessary tension raisers for reasons that are unrelated to the supposed justifications for war. THAT argument is still valid regardless of why you want divestiture.
3) It's a sop for Obama's wealthy Jewish campaign donors - which means it's hypocritical on top of everything else. Oh, sure, Obama is a morally pure politician - he's the "white knight on a horse" for the liberals - he would NEVER be hypocritical.
Gimme a break...
"In November 2003 IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reported that Iran had repeatedly and over an extended period failed to meet with its safeguards obligations, including by failing to declare its uranium enrichment program"
That is completely false information.
The Iranians were under ZERO obligation to inform the IAEA of their enrichment program until, IIRC, ninety days before introducing nuclear materials into the program.
You're also citing a report from three years ago. Try citing reports from the past year - where the IAEA has repeatedly stated that Iran has done NOTHING to divert any nuclear materials to anything other than a peaceful use AND has cooperated entirely with the NPT requirements.
The ONLY issue the IAEA has with Iran is that Iran has not been able to clear up some OLD issues pertaining to nuclear weapons documents that they allegedly had - and by the way, pretty much voluntarily revealed to the IAEA - and the history of a facility which was allegedly connected to the Iranian military and subsequently destroyed.
Iran also spent two or three years acting as though the enhanced Protocol was in place even though it was not required to do so. The result of that cooperation was Bush and the EU - even Russia, to some degree - doing everything in their power to detail the Iranian nuclear energy program.
According to the NPT, the United States and all other NPT signatories are REQUIRED to be ASSISTING Iran in developing its nuclear energy capabilities.
That's right, folks, ASSISTING Iran. Not sanctioning them.
Furthermore, according to the NPT Charter, both the IAEA and the UN have violated its requirements by, first, referring the issue to the UN, and secondly, by imposing sanctions on Iran for acts which are properly under the purview of the IAEA and in any event are not illegal under the NPT.
I repeat - there is ZERO evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program of any kind. It's nuclear ENERGY program is entirely legal, entirely necessary for Iran's economic development, has been conducted in an entirely legal manner, and under the NPT should be supported by the United States and other NPT signatories to the degree possible.
"Okay, let me see if I get this right. Here's the progressive positions:
Divestiture in South Africa in the circa 1980s:
A great idea to pressure a government to change its ways.
Divestiture in Iran circa 2007:
A terrible idea to pressure a government to change its ways.
So, I guess proven methods to apply pressure should be tossed out the window because they might help support Bush's March to War? Because, you know, we don't really care about changing what Iran does these days."
The difference between South Africa and Iran is that in the case of SA, you had the black majority of the population supporting sanctions. The majority of Iranians don't want sanctions placed on their country.
So far the US approach has been to offer essentially all stick and no carrot. What did the Bush admin. do when Iran had a 2 year freeze on enrichment?
I'll go further than that.
Even IF Iran DID have a nuclear weapons program, it STILL would be stupid for the US to use either sanctions or military actions against Iran to try to stop it.
The ONLY reason Iran would want a nuclear weapon is to counter the Israeli nuclear arsenal.
WHY is it that Israel was allowed to be one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world outside of the US, Russia and China? WHY is it that Israel was allowed to build a nuclear reactor, NOT be an NPT signatory, and then be allowed to construct an estimated 100-400 nuclear weapons in secret? Despite the fact that Israel's military is probably one of the most effective in the world and far superior to most of her immediate neighbors capabilities by several factors.
And in fact, Iran is not only a decade away from having a nuclear weapon if they DID have a program - and remember, just having enriched uranium is FAR from having an effective nuclear weapon, as North Korea demonstrated with its dud tests - but Iran is also probably several decades away from having the ability to even approach Israel's first-strike capability, let alone Israel's second-strike capability.
The ONLY reason Iran might want a nuclear weapon is to remove the "regime policy" of the US and Israel towards it. There is ZERO chance that Iran would ever first-strike Israel because that would be national suicide given Israel's second-strike capability.
However, if Iran believed that it was in imminent danger of being attacked for the purpose of "regime change", then obviously it would be worth it to make the cost of that attack unacceptable. And Israel can not absorb a first strike, even though it has a second-strike capability.
Therefore if Iran had even ONE bomb, it would force the US and Israel to take "regime change" off the table. THAT would be the goal of any Iranian nuclear weapons program - NOT any form of intent to attack Israel, or give weapons to terrorists, or even to achieve "parity" with Israel, which would not be possible given the relative economic and technological conditions.
So it is TOTAL BULLSHIT to talk about Iran needing to be sanctioned or attacked to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon, especially since there is, again, ZERO evidence that they are doing so.
What NEEDS to happen is that ISRAEL should be sanctioned and required by the international community to divest itself of its entire nuclear arsenal. The rest of the Middle East nations - including Iran, who has already previously suggested this - would agree to a "nuclear free" zone in the Middle East to include Israel.
THEN the international community could approach Iran and suggest that Iran submit to a very intrusive inspection program to guarantee that Iran would never develop such a program.
This was the intended approach in Iraq. Once the UN inspectors had cleared Iraq of having a nuclear weapons program, an inspection program would have been put in place that would have guaranteed that Iraq could not start on without being detected. Bush cut that short by attacking Iraq.
The same approach could be done in Iran - but ONLY after Israel has been equally disarmed.
The fact that this approach is not even being considered demonstrates the fundamental dishonesty of the entire "crisis". Bullshit about the Iranian "mad mullahs" and other garbage is being used to justify Israel's nuclear domination of the Middle East as well as a criminal intent by the United States to seize the oil reserves in Iran.
So anybody who supports sanctions OR military action against Iran is fundamentally engaged in supporting a criminal enterprise intended to drag the US into another war for the benefit of Israel, war profiteers, and the oil companies.
And that means you - you know who you are.
Note: none of the above is to be taken to mean that I give a rat's butt about the Iranian regime itself. I'm an atheist, not a Muslim. What I don't want are morons who think being aggressive toward Iran is somehow going to make things better for the US, no matter how lame their aggression is. Sanctions are no different in kind from war, only in degree.
Comments closed September 16, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Stoller entitles his piece "Obama continues the drumbeat for war with Iran." But the piece only describes Obama's support for economic pressure on Iran. How is that a "drumbeat for war"?
Posted by Winston | September 2, 2007 9:53 AM